Anyone using DNG format for their digital negatives? By that I mean is anyone bothering to convert their RAW files eg NEF's, CRW's and CR2's into Adobe's DNG file format. If so, could I ask why you are doing it, what you expect to get out of it, and what your experience of using DNG files has been?
Nope, not to date... looked at it and decided that the chances of not getting a decoder is slim, especially as I keep the previous versions of the raw conversion software.
The issue is that now Lightroom is offering to do this for little effort - via the import - I am re-assessing this at the end of Feb when Lightroom V1 is hopefully realeased.
Like Tom nope... we looked into the format here at the museum but could not see any reason to convert all of our existing RAW files from many different cameras, we only keep the RAW files for important jobs now and archive the converted TIFFS.
HTH
Phil
Posted by Andrew Stagg on January 22, 2007 at 12:09 PM
I use DNG. The main reason is that you can create a larger jpeg thumbnail during the process. Also, if you use older 'non supported' products like RawShooter, you can convert any newer cameras raw file to a dng and then process with RS. Having said that, I am using CS3 bridge now which has all but eliminated any of the older raw processing programs for me.
My workflow is a follows:
Copy original raw files from card.
Convert to DNG
Browse with Bridge, discard substandard images (most of them )
Initial keyword with Bridge
Convert with ACR and file in directory structure based around main image subject category (ie mammals, landscape etc etc)
Saved as 16bit tif 5120 pixels on longest size (100MB 16bit / 50Mb 8 bit - agency requirements)
Photoshop adjustments
File, name and further keywording in Iview
Back up DNG's to DVD x 2 - one offsite
Back up tif's to HDD x 2
It's not as complex as it sounds!
The other reason for using DNG is in 20 years time when pc's are made from paper and run at a billion squigglehertz, the old raw converters won't run on windows lightspeedvistaxp4. I have more faith that adobe will still be around and will still support DNG. (not that I will be able to read the backups anyway but hey!)
After reading Peter Krogh's 'DAM Book', I have now converted all my modest digital archive (I still shoot mainly film) to DNG and have archived my raw files onto DVD.
To my mind, I cannot see why anybody would want to use a proprietary format when DNG offers so many more advantages. Besides, RAW formats seem to change with different camera models and even the manufacturers withdraw support for extinct formats after a very short time.
It therefore makes a lot of sense to convert everything to one common, open and well-documented format - even more so if you use more than one digital camera. Even if Adobe disappears, it's open nature means the format will continue to be supported. In a couple of years' time, DNG will be as prevalent as Jpeg and TIFF.
As I've only been shooting digital for around four months, I can't really give any meaningful figures yet. However, I do convert all the images I choose to keep and will continue to do so.
Discussion
7 repliesThe issue is that now Lightroom is offering to do this for little effort - via the import - I am re-assessing this at the end of Feb when Lightroom V1 is hopefully realeased.
HTH
Phil
My workflow is a follows:
Copy original raw files from card.
Convert to DNG
Browse with Bridge, discard substandard images (most of them
Initial keyword with Bridge
Convert with ACR and file in directory structure based around main image subject category (ie mammals, landscape etc etc)
Saved as 16bit tif 5120 pixels on longest size (100MB 16bit / 50Mb 8 bit - agency requirements)
Photoshop adjustments
File, name and further keywording in Iview
Back up DNG's to DVD x 2 - one offsite
Back up tif's to HDD x 2
It's not as complex as it sounds!
The other reason for using DNG is in 20 years time when pc's are made from paper and run at a billion squigglehertz, the old raw converters won't run on windows lightspeedvistaxp4. I have more faith that adobe will still be around and will still support DNG. (not that I will be able to read the backups anyway but hey!)
Andrew
To my mind, I cannot see why anybody would want to use a proprietary format when DNG offers so many more advantages. Besides, RAW formats seem to change with different camera models and even the manufacturers withdraw support for extinct formats after a very short time.
It therefore makes a lot of sense to convert everything to one common, open and well-documented format - even more so if you use more than one digital camera. Even if Adobe disappears, it's open nature means the format will continue to be supported. In a couple of years' time, DNG will be as prevalent as Jpeg and TIFF.
Out of interest, roughly how many shots do you take a year, and roughly what proportion do you keep. Out of those you keep, do you convert them all?